Re: btrfs subvolume mount with different options

Thanks, chattr +C is that's what I am currently using. Also you already answered my next question, why it is not possible to set +C attribute on the existing file :) Yours sincerely, Konstantin V. Gavrilenko - Original Message - From: "Roman Mamedov" <r...@romanrm.net>

btrfs subvolume mount with different options

Hi list, just wondering whether it is possible to mount two subvolumes with different mount options, i.e. | |- /a defaults,compress-force=lza | |- /b defaults,nodatacow since, when both subvolumes are mounted, and when I change the option for one it is changed for all of them. thanks in

Re: super_total_bytes 32004083023872 mismatch with fs_devices total_rw_bytes 64008166047744

9.234618] BTRFS info (device sda): using free space tree [ 329.234620] BTRFS info (device sda): has skinny extents hope that helps and thanks for your help Yours sincerely, Konstantin V. Gavrilenko - Original Message - From: "Qu Wenruo" <quwenruo.bt...@gmx.com> To: &

super_total_bytes 32004083023872 mismatch with fs_devices total_rw_bytes 64008166047744

da 16.00MiB Unallocated: /dev/sda 11.07TiB Yours sincerely, Konstantin V. Gavrilenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage

Hello again list. I thought I would clear the things out and describe what is happening with my troubled RAID setup. So having received the help from the list, I've initially run the full defragmentation of all the data and recompressed everything with zlib. That didn't help. Then I run the

Re: slow btrfs with a single kworker process using 100% CPU

unk + new parity) 2. The maximum compressed write (128k) would require the update of 1 chunk on each of the 4 data disks + 1 parity write Stefan what mount flags do you use? kos - Original Message - From: "Roman Mamedov" <r...@romanrm.net> To: "Konstantin V. Gavrilen

Re: slow btrfs with a single kworker process using 100% CPU

the array and will be rebuilding it with 64 or 32 chunk size and checking the performance. VG, kos - Original Message - From: "Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG" <s.pri...@profihost.ag> To: "Konstantin V. Gavrilenko" <k.gavrile...@arhont.com> Cc:

Re: slow btrfs with a single kworker process using 100% CPU

Could be similar issue as what I had recently, with the RAID5 and 256kb chunk size. please provide more information about your RAID setup. p.s. you can also check the tread "Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage" - Original Message - From: "Stefan Priebe -

Re: Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage

- Original Message - From: "Peter Grandi" To: "Linux fs Btrfs" Sent: Tuesday, 1 August, 2017 3:14:07 PM Subject: Re: Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage > Peter, I don't think the filefrag is showing the

Re: Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage

Peter, I don't think the filefrag is showing the correct fragmentation status of the file when the compression is used. At least the one that is installed by default in Ubuntu 16.04 - e2fsprogs | 1.42.13-1ubuntu1 So for example, fragmentation of compressed file is 320 times more then

Re: Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage

Thanks for the comments. Initially the system performed well, I don't have the benchmark details written, but the compressed vs non compressed speeds were more or less similar. However, after several weeks of usage, the system started experiencing the described slowdowns, thus I started

Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage

Hello list, I am stuck with a problem of btrfs slow performance when using compression. when the compress-force=lzo mount flag is enabled, the performance drops to 30-40 mb/s and one of the btrfs processes utilises 100% cpu time. mount options: btrfs

Re: btrfs-progs confusing message

On 04/21/2016 04:02 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-04-20 16:23, Konstantin Svist wrote: >> Pretty much all commands print out the usage message when no device is >> specified: >> >> [root@host ~]# btrfs scrub start >> btrfs scrub start: too few argu

btrfs-progs confusing message

Pretty much all commands print out the usage message when no device is specified: [root@host ~]# btrfs scrub start btrfs scrub start: too few arguments usage: btrfs scrub start [-BdqrRf] [-c ioprio_class -n ioprio_classdata] | ... However, balance doesn't [root@host ~]# btrfs balance start

Re: bedup --defrag freezing

On 08/06/2015 04:10 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-08-05 17:45, Konstantin Svist wrote: Hi, I've been running btrfs on Fedora for a while now, with bedup --defrag running in a night-time cronjob. Last few runs seem to have gotten stuck, without possibility of even killing

bedup --defrag freezing

? Is bedup simply too out of date? What should I use to de-duplicate across snapshots instead? Etc.? Thanks, Konstantin # uname -a Linux mireille.svist.net 4.0.8-200.fc21.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Jul 10 21:09:54 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux # btrfs --version btrfs-progs v4.1 # btrfs fi show Label

corrupt 1, but no other indicators

I'm seeing the following message on every bootup in dmesg /var/log/messages: BTRFS: bdev /dev/sda2 errs: wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 1, gen 0 I've tried running scrub and it doesn't indicate any errors occurred Is this normal? Is something actually corrupted? Can I fix it? Details:

Re: PROBLEM: #89121 BTRFS mixes up mounted devices with their snapshots

Phillip Susi schrieb am 08.12.2014 um 15:59: On 12/7/2014 7:32 PM, Konstantin wrote: I'm guessing you are using metadata format 0.9 or 1.0, which put the metadata at the end of the drive and the filesystem still starts in sector zero. 1.2 is now the default and would not have

Re: PROBLEM: #89121 BTRFS mixes up mounted devices with their snapshots

Robert White schrieb am 08.12.2014 um 18:20: On 12/07/2014 04:32 PM, Konstantin wrote: I know this and I'm using 0.9 on purpose. I need to boot from these disks so I can't use 1.2 format as the BIOS wouldn't recognize the partitions. Having an additional non-RAID disk for booting introduces

Re: PROBLEM: #89121 BTRFS mixes up mounted devices with their snapshots

Anand Jain wrote on 02.12.2014 at 12:54: On 02/12/2014 19:14, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: I further investigate this issue. MegaBrutal, reported the following issue: doing a lvm snapshot of the device of a mounted btrfs fs, the new snapshot device name replaces the name of the original

Re: PROBLEM: #89121 BTRFS mixes up mounted devices with their snapshots

Phillip Susi wrote on 02.12.2014 at 20:19: On 12/1/2014 4:45 PM, Konstantin wrote: The bug appears also when using mdadm RAID1 - when one of the drives is detached from the array then the OS discovers it and after a while (not directly, it takes several minutes) it appears under /proc

raid5 filesystem only mountable ro and not currently fixable after a drive produced read errors

Hello, I have a raid5 btrfs that refuses to mount rw (ro works) and I think I'm out of options to get it fixed. First, this is roughly what got my filesystem corrupted: 1. I created the raid5 fs in March 2014 using the latest code available (Btrfs 3.12) on four 4TB devices (each encrypted

Re: PROBLEM: #89121 BTRFS mixes up mounted devices with their snapshots

2. or even after finishing it the system was freezing. If I got to get to 4. fast enough everything was OK, but again, that's not what I expect from a good operating system. Any objections? Konstantin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message

Re: Two persistent problems

Josef Bacik wrote on 14.11.2014 at 23:00: On 11/14/2014 04:51 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: Chris, Josef, anyone else who's interested, On IRC, I've been seeing reports of two persistent unsolved problems. Neither is showing up very often, but both have turned up often enough to indicate

btrfsck crash

://pastebin.com/TE6dSjgR). Anyone interested in looking into this or should I reformat this disk? Konstantin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: btrfs partition remounted read-only

On 07/13/2014 10:13 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Jul 4, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Konstantin Svist fry@gmail.com wrote: I have an overnight cron job with /sbin/fstrim -v / /bin/bedup dedup --defrag Probably not related, but these look backwards, why not reverse them? Chris Murphy Thanks

btrfs partition remounted read-only

I have an overnight cron job with /sbin/fstrim -v / /bin/bedup dedup --defrag Every once in a while, it causes the FS to be remounted read-only. Problem is pretty intermittent so far (aside from a few kernel revisions a while ago). Please advise. Corresponding bugs:

Re: severe hardlink bug

Jan Schmidt list.btrfs at jan-o-sch.net writes: Please give the patch set btrfs: extended inode refs by Mark Fasheh a try (http://lwn.net/Articles/498226/). It eliminates the hard links per directory limit (introducing a rather random, artificial limit of 64k instead). Hi, Jan! I'm happy to

Re: severe hardlink bug

Dipl.-Ing. Michael Niederle mniederle at gmx.at writes: I reinstalled over 700 packages - plt-scheme beeing the only one failing due to the btrfs link restriction. I have hit the same issue - tried to run BackupPC with a pool on btrfs filesystem. After some time the error of too many links

Re: severe hardlink bug

C Anthony Risinger anthony at xtfx.me writes: btrfs only fails when you have hundreds of hardlinks to the same file in the *same* directory ... certainly not a standard use case. use snapshots to your advantage: - snap source - rsync --inplace source to target (with some other opts that

[PATCH] btrfs: fix warning in iput for bad-inode

-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov khlebni...@openvz.org --- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 10 +++--- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c index 15fceef..3e949bd 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c @@ -3952,7 +3952,6 @@ struct